Restrictions on Filing Cassation Appeals in Egypt

Cassation appeal is the highest level of litigation in the Egyptian judicial system. It represents the ultimate safeguard for ensuring legal justice and rectifying errors that may arise in the application or interpretation of the law.

However, the Egyptian legislator has not left this avenue unrestricted; rather, it has been subject to precise limitations designed to prevent abuse and to uphold the principle of judicial stability.

The Court of Cassation is not a court of facts; it does not re-examine evidence or re-assess factual matters. Instead, it is a court of law that ensures the proper application of legal provisions to the facts as established in the judgment under appeal.

Thus, appeal before it is not an absolute right but one governed by strict conditions and specific limitations. Chief among these are the cases where cassation is not permissible, which we detail and analyze below.

Judgments in Absentia Issued by Criminal Courts

A judgment in absentia rendered by a criminal court cannot be challenged by cassation.

The rationale is that such a judgment is not considered final, since the law provides for a specific remedy: opposition (objection). As long as opposition remains available, the judgment does not acquire res judicata status, and therefore cassation is inadmissible.

This principle is grounded in the rule that the Court of Cassation only reviews final judgments of criminal courts or courts of appeal after ordinary remedies have been exhausted.

If the convicted person lodges opposition and a subsequent judgment is issued in their presence (or opposition is dismissed), that judgment becomes final, and cassation may then be sought within the statutory time limit.

Misdemeanor Judgments Where the Fine Does Not Exceed the Legal Threshold

The legislator has expressly excluded certain judgments from cassation where the imposed fine does not exceed a specific monetary threshold.

This applies to minor misdemeanors limited to fines within the statutory minimum.

The legislative rationale is clear:

The Court of Cassation is concerned with correcting substantial legal errors that affect fundamental principles of justice, not with being burdened by thousands of trivial appeals involving insignificant fines.

Accordingly, cassation jurisdiction is confined to judgments involving significant legal or financial issues.

Civil Claims Attached to Criminal Proceedings Below the Cassation Threshold

In cases where a civil claim is brought alongside a criminal case, cassation is not permitted on the civil aspect alone if the compensation awarded or claimed falls below the statutory threshold for cassation.

The reasoning is that the Court of Cassation does not reassess damages or their quantification; it only examines whether the legal basis of liability was correctly applied.

Thus, cassation on the civil aspect is admissible only where there is a legal error in establishing liability or applying the relevant legal provisions.

Appeals Filed Without Interest or Beyond the Scope of the Appellant’s Rights

The condition of interest is a matter of public order in all forms of appeal.

An appeal is inadmissible if the appellant has not been prejudiced by the judgment, or if they lack a direct and personal interest in its annulment.

For instance:

• A civil claimant cannot challenge a judgment as to the criminal penalty, since it does not affect their civil right to compensation.
• A civilly liable party may only appeal the aspects relating to their civil liability, not the criminal conviction of the accused.

The Court of Cassation has consistently held that the interest must be present, direct, and current, and that a successful appeal must result in a modification of the appellant’s legal position.

Interlocutory or Provisional Judgments Before Final Ruling on the Merits

Article 30 of Law No. 57 of 1959 provides:

“No appeal by way of cassation shall lie against judgments issued before a final ruling on the merits, unless such judgments have the effect of preventing the continuation of the proceedings.”

This means that judgments rendered during the proceedings—such as appointing an expert, postponing the case, or rejecting an incidental request—are not subject to cassation since they do not resolve the merits.

The exception arises when a ruling halts the case, e.g., a decision of lack of jurisdiction, expiration of the case, or annulment of essential procedures.

This limitation prevents obstruction of justice and protects the Court of Cassation from being overwhelmed with interlocutory appeals unrelated to the core dispute.

Cassation Is Inadmissible While Opposition Remains Available

It is a well-settled rule that cassation is not admissible against a judgment that is still open to opposition.

Opposition is an original remedy that precedes cassation, and the two cannot be pursued concurrently.

Accordingly, if a cassation appeal is filed before opposition is resolved, it is premature and procedurally inadmissible.

The reason is that the contested judgment has not yet acquired the finality required for cassation.

Judgments in Contraventions and Those Inextricably Linked to Them

Judgments concerning minor contraventions are not subject to cassation, as the legislator deemed them unworthy of review by the highest court.

This restriction also extends to judgments inseparably connected to contraventions—for example, when a contravention is closely linked to a minor misdemeanor forming an indivisible unit.

If, however, the connection is severable, cassation may proceed as to the admissible portion, while being excluded for the rest.

Practical and Conceptual Framework of These Restrictions

These restrictions do not curtail litigants’ rights but embody a modern conception of justice that balances the right of appeal with the stability of legal relations.

Were cassation to be available in every case—no matter how trivial—it would paralyze the justice system and overburden the supreme court with insignificant disputes devoid of legal substance.

The seven excluded cases reflect a golden principle of judicial practice:

“The Court of Cassation corrects law, not facts.”

It is the guardian of legal legitimacy, not a forum for retrial.

Conclusion

Cassation is a means of correcting errors in the application of law, not a vehicle for re-litigating disputes.

It may only be exercised within the limits set by law and in the cases defined by the legislator.

Justice is achieved not by multiplying appeals but by ensuring the finality and authority of judgments, thereby reinforcing legal certainty—a cornerstone of the modern state.

Frequently Asked Questions

To find out more, please fill out the form or email us at: info@eg.Andersen.com

Contact Us